Cracks_InTheWalls

Ngl this was my first thought. Or dig out a pair of those ol' soap shoes and do a sick grind (practice first with both of these).

Every serious bullying incident I ran into growing up ended when a kid got popped in the mouth. Every unserious bullying incident made no impact when I knew if it got serious, I could pop them in the mouth and likely come out on top.

I've met way too many adults with personality issues that were a product of adults telling child them "physical violence is always wrong, just tell an adult, be the bigger person" etc. It always needs to be taught as a last resort, and it needs to be understood that even justified violence comes with consequences and other tools must be used first, but when you've done everything you're supposed to and no one is helping to the resolve the problem, sometimes you have to do it yourself.

It ain't pretty, and it ain't ideal, but it's the way it is.

I swear to god, there's a section of the population that just straight-up forgets headphones and/or white noise generators are things...

The amount of bitching I've heard about ambient noises I've been blissfully unaware of with an mp3 on loop and a $3 pair of headphones is crazy.

Don't quote me on this (haven't seen it and only pulled partial clips before answering), but I think the audio just runs as per normal. Though it'd be kind of cool to have reverse audio as an option (if in a theatre, idk, have a set up kinda like what folks do for silent discos/some bluetooth device with serious multi-connection capacity or something, and people who opt for it have one earpiece in while the vanilla track plays in the room).

Only aware of it 'cause the rep theatre here did a screening once. Seemed cool.

I mean, this exists, so why not? https://www.screenslate.com/articles/shining-forwards-and-backwards

There's an in-universe argument to be made that the Devil has successfully corrupted the Christian church, its teachings and materials, and has for a long time. It's not a new idea, though contexts have been different.

Not a Christian myself, but I'd see loud propagation of this idea as an interesting counterforce to the current evangelical climate. For those folks who, for whatever reasons, remain Christians but think the outcomes of popular Christianity are fucked, this is a position to fight from.

Anything that bolsters resistance against these particular chucklefucks is a good thing.

HONK

Worst I hurt myself: Older, much larger cousin broke my leg by landing on it in a bouncy castle.

Injury that pissed me off the most: At 13, I loved jiujitsu and rock climbing above all else. At my last jiujitsu class before going to California to, among other things, go bouldering in Joshua Tree, I sliced my heel badly on the metal bottom of the dojo door that had about an inch and a half of clearance from the floor.

Shoes in general, let alone those super-tight climbing shoes, were out of the question for two weeks. I'm still mad. Of all the ways I could've got hurt, it was the fucking door on the way out that took me down.

It is, though noting the term sexism itself hasn't been replaced with another that captures the distinction between biological sex and gender, at least one I know of. Gendered prejudice could be one, I guess.

We should be fighting it in a few directions:
"Women can do that too"
"Men can do that too"
"Women don't necessarily need to do that"
"Men don't necessarily need to do that"
"People who do not consider themselves men or women can do that too, and/or not do that."

Great question, and one that's pretty fraught at the moment. I don't have an answer beyond a tautology - a man is someone who identifies as a man - and the knowledge that some cultures assign adherence to certain behavioural norms to that (ex. A man acts as breadwinner, is competitive, has a certain type of physicality distinct from women, etc.), most of which crumble with any hard look at them.

To be frank, I don't really care about what a man or woman is. If identifying as a man if female, or a woman if male, makes it so someone doesn't want to blow their brains out, then that's a cool and good thing. But note the distinction - man != male and woman != female in my statement.

Language reflects the culture in which it is used. In these times, there's more acceptance (though not universal) of the premises that a) sex and gender identity are separate concepts, and b) a person can have a gender identity that does not map onto a 'male/man-female/woman' scheme.

Given this, singular they/them makes sense - on discovering the identity of individual who, while almost certainly male or female (though intersex exceptions exist), does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman, they can remain a 'they' where someone who is distinctly a man or woman doesn't. This assumes they do not use other pronouns (some do, but neopronouns get a lot of flack).

I'll be candid and say I don't get why this throws people off, and I've had to fight prescriptivist English profs about it before. It only makes sense to me if we discard the premises noted at the beginning, and that doesn't make sense to me. To my fellow men - how many times have you been told you are/are not a man on the basis of factors beyond having an Y chromosome, a dick and male secondary sexual characteristics? And you're still certain that gender identity is inherent on the basis of biological sex alone, rather than related but distinct social constructions?